, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 223–245 | Cite as

Descriptive and explanatory markedness

Original Paper


The wide empirical coverage of two number features, [±singular] and [±augmented], is used to show that (Greenbergian) category-internal markedness, (geometric) feature markedness, and value markedness are, respectively, epiphenomenal, untenable, and too simplistically formulated to be currently evaluated.


Feature geometry Features Markedness (implications) Number Person 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anceaux J.C. (1965) The Nimboran language: Phonology and morphology. ’s-Gravenhage, M. NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver D. (2001) Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Béjar, S. (2003). Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  4. Benveniste E. (1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Calabrese, A. (1988). Towards a theory of phonological alphabets. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchward C.M. (1953) Tongan grammar. Vava’u Press, TongaGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper R. (1983) Quantification and syntactic theory. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett G. (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulson, M. (1992). Sanskrit: An introduction to the classical language (2nd ed.). London: Hodder and Stoughton (revised by Richard Gombrich and James Benson).Google Scholar
  12. Crowley, T. (1982). The Paamese language of Vanuatu, volume B 87 of Pacific linguistics. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  13. Cysouw M. (2003) The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Foley W. (1991) The Yimas language of New Guinea. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Frampton J. (2002) Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. In: Andronis M., Debenport E., Pycha A., Yoshimori K. (eds) Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society (Vol. 38). Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp 207–222Google Scholar
  16. Greenberg J.H. (1966) Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  17. Hale K. (1973) Person marking in Walbiri. In: Anderson S.R., Kiparsky P. (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 308–344Google Scholar
  18. Harbour, D. (2005). Valence and atomic number. Ms., Queen Mary, University of London (under review).Google Scholar
  19. Harbour, D. (2006a). Number: The morphological use of semantic atoms. Queen Mary’s OPAL #5.’s-OPALs.html.
  20. Harbour, D. (2006b). On the unity of ‘number’ in morphology and semantics. In R. Otoguro, G. Popova, & A. Spencer, (Eds.), Essex research reports in linguistics (Proceedings of the York–Essex morphology meeting 2) (Vol. 47, pp. 21–30). University of Essex: Department of Language and Linguistics.Google Scholar
  21. Harbour, D. (2006c). Person hierarchies and geometries without hierarchies or geometries. Presentation at Leipzig morphology colloquium. Queen Mary’s OPAL #6.’s-OPALs.html.
  22. Harbour D. (2007) Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Harbour, D. (2009). Mass, non-singularity, and augmentation. In C. Halpert, J. Hartman, & D. Hill, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 workshop in Greek syntax and semantics at MIT (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 57, pp. 349–360). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  24. Harley, H. (1994). Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In A. Carnie, H. Harley, & T. Bures, (Eds.), MITWPL 21: Papers on phonology and morphology (pp. 289–320). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  25. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haspelmath M. (2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heim I. (2008) Features on bound pronouns. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35–56Google Scholar
  28. Kratzer A. (2009) Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krifka M. (1992) Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In: Sag I., Szabolcsi A. (eds) Lexical matters.. CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp 29–53Google Scholar
  30. Link G. (1983) The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bäuerle R., Schwarze C., Stechow A. (eds) Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 302–323Google Scholar
  31. Lipkind W. (1945) Winnebago grammar. King’s Crown Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. McGinnis M. (2005) On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81: 699–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKay G. (1978) Pronominal person and number categories in Rembarrnga and Djeebbana. Oceanic Linguistics 17: 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKay G. (1979) Gender and the category unit augmented. Oceanic Linguistics 18: 203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nevins, A. I. (2003). Do person/number syncretisms refer to negative values? Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  36. Nevins A. (2008) Cross-modular parallels in the study of phon and phi. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi theory: Phi-features across interfaces and modules. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 329–367Google Scholar
  37. Noyer R. (1992) Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. MITWPL, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. Oltra-Massuet, I. (2000). On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalan verbal morphology. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  39. Sauerland U. (2008) On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In: Harbour D., Adger D., Béjar S. (eds) Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57–82Google Scholar
  40. Schlenker, P. (2003). Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In J. Lecarme (Ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II (selected papers from the fifth conference on Afroasiatic languages, Paris, 2000) (pp. 409–428). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. Siewierska A. (2004) Person. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Silverstein M. (1976) Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: Dixon R.M.W. (eds) Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Australian Institutes of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, pp 112–171Google Scholar
  43. Sprott, R. W. (1992). Jemez syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas D. (1955) Three analyses of the Ilocano pronoun system. Word 11: 204–208Google Scholar
  45. Trommer J. (2008) A feature-geometric approach to Amharic verb classes. In: Bachrach A., Nevins A. (eds) Inflectional identity.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 206–236Google Scholar
  46. Tsoulas G. (2008). On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. In C. Halpert, J. Hartman, & D. Hill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 workshop in Greek syntax and semantics at MIT (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 56, pp. 333–348)). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  47. Tuite K. (1995). Svan and its speakers. Ms., Université de Montréal.
  48. Watanabe A. (2010) Vague quantity, numerals and natural numbers. Syntax 13: 37–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watkins L.J. (1984) A grammar of Kiowa. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NEGoogle Scholar
  50. Wunderlich D. (2001) How gaps and substitutions can become optimal: The pronominal affix paradigms of Yimas. Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 315–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yumitani, Y. (1998). A phonology and morphology of Jemez Towa. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  52. Zwicky A. (1977) Hierarchies of person. Chicago Linguistics Society 13: 714–733Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations